Advertisement

Millennials and the New Penology: Will Generational Change in the U.S. Facilitate the Triumph of Risk Rationality in Criminal Justice

  • Jonathan SimonEmail author
Chapter
  • 25 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Risk, Crime and Society book series (PSRCS)

Abstract

Predictions by some in the early 1990s that United States criminal justice was dominated by a “new penology” of rational risk management (Feeley and Simon, Criminology 30.4: 449–474, 1992; The Futures of Criminology 173: 174, 1994) proved at best premature, as the nation adopted extreme penal policies and aggressive policing tactics with no particular basis in scientific evidence and rejected proposals to moderate penal severity by risk. Since the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, however, signs abound that the risk paradigm is gaining ground in the name of “criminal justice reform” (Kohlher et al. 2018). While reservations about risk remain significant, many of them express concern about racial justice consequences of risk management instruments that will carry over the criminalization patterns of recent decades into the future. This chapter argues that the delayed arrival of risk rationality reflects the initial stages of a slow but inexorable shift in generational political criminology as the influence of “Baby Boomers” (Boomers), born between 1946 and 1964, crests and that of “Millennials,” born between 1981 and 1996, rises (PEW, Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins, 2019). I offer a historical-cultural hypothesis for why Baby Boomers rejected rational risk logics when it came to crime and why Millennials are more open to it. Looking at “period effects” on generational imaginaries points to striking differences in the political landscape in which crime was experienced by these distinct cohorts as they entered young adulthood, a phase that sociologists have long viewed as having enduring influence across the life course (Mannheim, Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1927). Specifically, I argue that Boomers and Millennials have been influenced by “signal crimes” (Innes, Signal Crimes: Social Reactions to Crime, Disorder and Control, Oxford University Press, 2014) that point in very different directions, with very different implications about both behavior and the meaning of crime for social organization. This is especially clear when we consider these highly publicized crimes against two contexts that have long been drivers of punitive turns in crime policy in America: Black communities and central cities. Boomer signal crimes, experienced against a background of racialized violence and urban crisis, made Boomers receptive to penal populism (Pratt, Penal Populism, Routledge, 2007). I offer the hypothesis that Millennial signal crimes, decoupled largely from Black communities and decentered from urban landscapes, have laid the groundwork for a generation more receptive to rational risk logics about crime. Baby Boomers came to think about crime through a broader “culture of fear” that led to an angry, hot, penal populism. Millennials are not immune to crime fear, but are much more exposed to sources of anxiety or dread like climate change and economic inequality, against which crime is perceived as one more problem to manage.

Keywords

Generation Cohort effects Signal crimes Millennials Baby Boomers Penal populism 

References

  1. Aviram, Hadar. 2015. Cheap on Crime: Recession-Era Politics and the Transformation of American Punishment. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, Stanley. 2011. Folk devils and moral panics. Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, Stanley. 1985. Visions of social control: Crime, punishment and classification. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Davis, Mike. 1990/2006. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles (New Edition). Verso Books.Google Scholar
  5. Durkheim, Emile. 1893/2014. The division of labor in society. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  6. Durkheim, Emile. “Two laws of penal evolution.” Economy and Society 2.3 (1903/1973): 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eberhardt, Jennifer L. et al. 2004. “Seeing black: race, crime, and visual processing.” Journal of personality and social psychology 87.6: 876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feeley, Malcolm M., and Jonathan Simon. “The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications.” Criminology 30.4 (1992): 449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feeley, Malcolm, and Jonathan Simon. “Actuarial justice: The emerging new criminal law.” The Futures of Criminology 173 (1994): 174.Google Scholar
  10. Garland, David. 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (2001)Google Scholar
  11. Grasso, M., Farrall, S., Gray, E., Hay, C., & Jennings, W. (2019). Thatcher’s Children, Blair’s Babies, Political Socialization and Trickle-down Value Change: An Age, Period and Cohort Analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 17–36.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gray, Emily, et al. “Political Socialization, Worry about Crime and Antisocial Behaviour: An Analysis of Age, Period and Cohort Effects.” The British Journal of Criminology 59.2 (2018): 435–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenwood, Peter W., and Allan F. Abrahamse. Selective incapacitation. Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1982.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., and Roberts, B. 1978/2013. Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state and law and order. Macmillan International Higher Education.Google Scholar
  15. Hannikainen, Ivar R., Edouard Machery, and Fiery A. Cushman. “Is utilitarian sacrifice becoming more morally permissible?” Cognition 170 (2018): 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heidegger, Martin. 1927. Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper (1962).Google Scholar
  17. Hinton, Elizabeth. 2016. From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Innes, Martin. 2014. Signal crimes: Social reactions to crime, disorder and control. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Koehler, Johann A., Gil Rothschild-Elyassi, and Jonathan Simon. 2018. “The New Penology.” In Heubner, Beth M. (ed.) Oxford Bibliographies in Criminology. Oxford University Press. Oxford, U.K.Google Scholar
  20. Knepper, P. (2015). Writing the History of Crime. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  21. Kracauer, Siegfried. 1949/1959. From Caligari to Hitler: A psychological history of the German film. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Low, Setha. Behind the gates: Life, security, and the pursuit of happiness in fortress America. Routledge, 2004.Google Scholar
  23. Mannheim, Karl. 1927. “The Problem of Generations.” In Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  24. Milkman, Ruth. 2017. A new political generation: Millennials and the post-2008 wave of protest. American Sociological Review, 82(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Milkman, R. (2018). The Senior Precariat. New Labor Forum, 27(1), 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, Lisa Lynn. 2016. The Myth of Mob Rule: Violent Crime and Democratic Politics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Muhammad, Khalil Gibran. 2011. The condemnation of blackness. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Myers, Dowell. “Peak millennials: Three reinforcing cycles that amplify the rise and fall of urban concentration by millennials.” Housing Policy Debate 26.6 (2016): 928–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ozog, Cassandra Anne. 2013. Fear rises from the dead: A sociological analysis of contemporary zombie films as mirrors of social fears. Diss. Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Regina.Google Scholar
  30. PEW Research Center. 2019. Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/.
  31. Pratt, John. 2007. Penal populism. Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Reichman, Nancy. Managing crime risks: Toward an insurance based model of social control. Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control 8 (1986): 151–172.Google Scholar
  33. Rothschild-Elyassi, Gil, Johann A. Koehler, and Jonathan Simon. 2019. “Actuarial Justice,” in Deflem, Matthieu and Charles F. Wellford (eds.) Handbook of Social Control. Wiley Handbooks in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Liveright Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Simon, Jonathan. 2007. Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Simon, Jonathan. 2010. “Consuming obsessions: Housing, homicide, and mass incarceration since 1950.” University of Chicago Legal Forum, Vol. 2010: 165.Google Scholar
  37. Simon, Jonathan. 2014. Mass incarceration on trial: A remarkable court decision and the future of prisons in America. New Press.Google Scholar
  38. Simon, Jonathan. 2017. “Beyond tough on crime: Towards a better politics of prosecution.” Prosecutors and Democracy: A Cross-National Study 250–275.Google Scholar
  39. Sugrue, Thomas J. 2014. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit-Updated Edition. Vol. 6. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Thompson, Heather Ann. 2017. Blood in the water: The Attica prison uprising of 1971 and its legacy. Vintage.Google Scholar
  41. Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling. 1982. “Broken windows.” Atlantic Monthly 249.3: 29–38.Google Scholar
  42. Zimring, Franklin E. 2006. The great American crime decline. Oxford University Press, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lance Robbins Professor of Criminal Justice LawUC BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations